Carbon-cycle

Carbon: It’s Not Just for Diamonds Even as developing countries mirror our movement to increased health through improved sanitation, better availability of food and clean water, and better access to crisis medical care, we see our citizens’ health declining in the United States. A variety of metrics show this decline in health: quality of life is declining, reduced life expectancy, obesity rates are increasing, and a variety of other disturbing trends such as the increasing rate of autoimmune disease. Our sense of security and well-being declines, and it is interesting to see the effects of this change in quality of life: we lose our zest for life and look for the sweetness of life in our foods; we suffer the physical and mental health consequences; and then turn our (conscious or subconscious) anger against self. Do you see a correlation with paragraph two?

The argument is often whether genetics or environment causes health issues. Blaming genetics is difficult: was it genetics that caused the improved values in these metrics over the past century? Why the U-turn now? No, we cannot blame genetics for these trends. We can blame our environment. And we have created our environment. Whether there is global warming or climate change is less important than the question of whether we are improving the place we inhabit, the environment that gives us life and determines our ability to be healthy, or whether we are destroying our habitat. The many proposed changes necessary to reverse climate change (if it is occurring) just happen to be the same measures necessary for reversing our declining quality of life and health metrics.

Climate change arguments usually start with carbon-based fuel plants and transportation. Carbon-based means that the fuel was once alive, that is, it is composed of carbon. This includes fuels such as gas and oil (liquid), and coal (solid). Burning these combustibles puts the carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, CO2. The solution to climate change (if it is occurring) is easy: stop transferring carbon from the ground into the atmosphere. And we all know how that is working – very slowly! We are too invested in the carbon-based technologies for producing power.

Even if there is not global warming, all life on the planet will benefit from the changes we would make to counter climate change. There are two ways to reduce atmospheric CO2.While we are making efforts to reduce emissions, we also can be working on carbon sequestration, returning carbon from the atmosphere to the soil. As the graphic shows, “carbon enters the soil via organic matter.” Living plants, from grasses to trees, pull carbon dioxide from the air and give back only oxygen. The carbon remains in the plant and is used to build everything from the root structure to the leaves. When the plant dies, the carbon in its structure returns to the soil. Some of this carbon is returned to the atmosphere by insects and microbes in the soil. A portion remains in the soil, “sequestered” from the atmosphere.

“Terrestrial sequestration” is a fancy name for the natural processes by which carbon is put into the ground by such activities as no-till farming, and wetlands and grassland restoration; these are free or low cost, and beneficial in many ways beyond simply taking carbon dioxide out of the air;

“Geologic sequestration” is the artificial movement of carbon from the atmosphere into deep underground rock formations; this can be a profitable venture for entrepreneurs, but does not enhance the terrestrial environment or improve crop capability. There is also the problem of what will be done with these stores and how to maintain them forever.

With terrestrial sequestration, the soil becomes very rich, not just because of the carbon deposit, but also because of the many life forms that can live in that environment. This is a means of restoring productivity to depleted soil, increasing the ability of nature to provide for its varied inhabitants. This is a win-win scenario showing that environmental issues are not a zero sum game.

Obviously, there will be winners and losers in a switch to new forms of energy.

We see China winning by producing inexpensive solar panels on a large scale.

We see oil companies can win as they diversify into alternative energy sources, as in this article on Chevron. If those companies remember that they are “energy” providers, not just oil providers, they see a bright future.

Farmers win with no-till practices that are better for the environment and the bottom line.

And if the environment is better, everybody wins.

The question is: Are we willing to change to improve our lives? The graphic shows the carbon cycle. Note that the way carbon is “permanently” removed from the atmosphere is when it becomes a fossil fuel or is trapped deep in the earth. Otherwise, it is free to flow from atmosphere to earth and to atmosphere and continue that cycle endlessly. This cycle is not bad as long as it is balanced. We have disrupted the flow by increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere. Note that nature sometimes disrupts the flow, also, as with a volcano spewing ash and chemicals into the atmosphere. This article documents a volcano eruption in 1815 that caused 1816 to be known as “the year without a summer.”

The role of the individual is a big one, and this concept is a recurring theme for both personal and global health: being a conscientious consumer. The conscientious consumer is like the other elements of nature in that they do not take more than they need and can use. That is a pretty simple statement. But it is not the thought with which we were raised. We need a new thought. As a good friend puts on the bottom of each email she sends:Live simply, so that others may simply live. Good new thought! Next article